Failed Legal Maneuvers Against Sathya Sai Baba: PART SEVEN

Failed Legal Maneuvers Against Sathya Sai Baba: PART SEVEN

1999 Writ Petition About Alleged Kidney Transplant Malpractice:
On his defamatory, Anti-Sai WordPress blog, Barry Pittard attempted to bolster his lamentable argument that court cases have been filed against Sathya Sai Baba by citing the alleged “stolen kidney” writ petition (whose details were taken exclusively from an Indian newspaper).

First and foremost, the alleged writ petition was not filed against Sathya Sai Baba or the Sai Organization. It was allegedly filed against the doctors at the Super Speciality Hospital. To Date: Not even one person (including resourceful rationalists, atheists or Indian skeptics) has been able to produce a scan or copy to the alleged “stolen kidney” writ petition. The only “evidence” cited is the following Deccan Chronicle newspaper article:

Deccan Chronicle 5.11.99: “Hyderabad Nov 4: Justice G Raghu Ram of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Thursday admitted a writ petition seeking initiation of criminal prosecution against the doctors of the Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Medical Sciences, Puttaparthi in Anantapur district alleging malpractices regarding the transplantation of kidney.

The writ petition has been filed by Balaji Triambak Rao Karavande, who has alleged that the doctors of the institute removed a kidney from his body and did not transplant the same to his father…

After he offered to donate one of his kidneys to save his father’s life, the doctors at the institute operated on him on April 25 1994 and told him that the same would be transplanted to his father.

BT Karavande said that his father died in December 1995 and to his shock the doctors claimed that his father’s body did not show signs of a new transplanted kidney. He informed the court that after this revelation, he lodged a complaint with the Latur [Maharashtra] police, who exumed the body, conducted a post-mortem, and confirmed that no kidney transplant has taken place.

He alleged that the police at Puttaparthi did not register the complaint and that he was thrown out of the hospital when he confronted the doctors with the relevant documents. He sought compensation of Rs 20 lakh and direction to the police to register a case and punish the guilty who played fraud upon him.”

Mr Trimakababa Rao was the man who was supposed to have a kidney transplant. Mr Balaji (his son) donated his kidney to his father. After the transplant, the kidney was declared “non-functional, due to vascular occulation” (which means the kidney should have been removed). Consequently, Mr. Balaji’s sister offered her kidney. However, the father had to be put on dialysis. Mr. Balaji heard of a “kidney racket” in Bangalore, became suspicious and had his father undergo a sonogram on August 5th 1995 and a CT scan on August 7th 1995. Both scans allegedly showed that the father had both of his diseased kidneys. Mr. Balaji (after finding out that his father did not have a kidney transplant) did absolutely nothing about it! After his father died in 1997 (2 years after finding out that the kidney transplant did not occur), Mr. Balaji made a complaint with the police and had his father’s body exhumed, which allegedly confirmed no kidney transplant was performed. What happened to the sonogram and CT scan? Why did Mr. Balaji wait for his father to die before he made a complaint 2 years after discovering the alleged malpractice?

The newspaper clipping from the Deccan Herald contributed to the confusion surrounding the facts regarding the “stolen kidney”. The writ petition was allegedly filed in 1999, two years after his father died and four years after the alleged kidney malpractice. Also, despite getting a sonogram and CT scan in 1995, Mr. Balaji did nothing and apparently did not even submit this as key evidence. He waited 2 years until after his father died. In the writ petition, Mr. Balaji made no mention to either the sonogram and CT scans made in 1995.

About this 1999 newspaper article, Barry Pittard said “My reader may be curious (or could simply guess) as to the outcome of the following”. To Date: Neither Barry Pittard (nor any other person for the matter) can provide verifiable documentation to support the claim that the doctors at the Super Speciality Hospital were found guilty of any wrong doing.

Barry Pittard may want others to “guess” about the outcome of this case (because he cannot provide any documentation to back-up his suspicions against the doctors at the Super Speciality Hospital), but the fact of the matter remains that Mr. Pittard does not know the outcome of this case. These are facts and far be it for Barry Pittard to “guess” and ask his readers to “guess” about the outcome of an alleged writ petition whose details have not been mentioned or published by anyone in the past nine years (not even by Indian Rationalists who would have highly publicized any ruling made against the doctors).

Reference

Also see:

Failed Legal Maneuvers: Part One
Failed Legal Maneuvers: Part Two
Failed Legal Maneuvers: Part Three
Failed Legal Maneuvers: Part Four
Failed Legal Maneuvers: Part Five
Failed Legal Maneuvers: Part Six
Failed Legal Maneuvers: Part Seven (You Are Here)

Sathya Sai Baba, Cult Claims & The Failed Lawsuit

Sathya Sai Baba - Cult Claims And The Failed Lawsuit

Sathya Sai Baba, Cult Claims & The Failed Lawsuit
On Barry Pittard‘s WordPress Blog (which contains numerous defamations, libels and slurs against Sathya Sai Baba, Sai Devotees and Sai Proponents), he brought up the issue (yet again) of Alaya Rahm’s failed and self-dismissed lawsuit against the Sathya Sai Baba Society Of America. Barry Pittard said (in part):

barrypittard.wordpress.com/2008/06/07/430/
The issue of the Alaya Rahm law case against the directors of the Sathya Sai Society of America is dealt with at this place: Alaya Rahm’s Lawsuit vs Sathya Sai Society of America – Joint Statement by the International JuST Group and the Rahm family…Sathya Sai Baba’s Organization Lost Chance For Independent Adjudication…The Rahm case was lost on a technicality. The Society is but a bookshop! Lawyers and others in various countries since consulted are nonplussed that the Alaya Rahm’s pro bono attorney, William Brelsford, appeared not to see this coming and therefore to preempt it. Further, the judge in Orange County Court initially pointed out that Sathya Sai Baba could not be sued in the USA, only in India. Thus, a neat piece of lawyering in the cult’s long-term setting up of its organs paid off for them. But it was not good for the truth, which the Sai Organization members go about proclaiming is theirs – with such beatific smiles on their faces!…Yet Mr and Mrs Rahm (Al and Marisa), who formerly and for many years rose to great heights in the Sathya Sai Organization, embarked on a number of attempts, in consultation with other family members, including most of all their son Alaya, to bring to light the facts as adjudged within the third party, democratic and accountable institutions in their country, such as the Orange County Court, in California, and the State Department, USA. They were also generous of their time and energy (amidst strong private commitments that those such as Glen Meloy and myself had to be very respectful of) in testifying to demandingly investigative media such as the BBC, DR (Denmark’s national television and radio broadcaster, Daily Telegraph, India Today, The West Australian, etc. Likewise in our group’s submissions to UNESCO…As I know from my personal contact with them and other first-hand sources, they have withstood unimaginable distortions, attacks on their integrity, slander and libel. The links, sometimes disguised by being indirect, between foremost leaders of the Sathya Sai Organization and unofficial Internet presences where the libeling of former devotees continues, we are able to document to bona fide media, scholarly investigators, courts, concerned public institutions, and so on. In regard to the unconscionable behavior of Sathya Sai Baba devotees who keep silent in the face of the terrible libels and slanders, See the recent document (supported by still further evidence which, for any legal or other prudential reasons is for the time being witheld) signed by former devotees: The International Sathya Sai Organization – an accessory to a massive libel and disinformation campaign. Open letter to the Prasanthi Council – c/o Dr. M. Goldstein, Dr. G. Venkataraman and its other members.

Barry Pittard is resorting to his typical ploy of deflection by using rambling cirucumlocution to distort the facts pertaining to Alaya Rahm and his failed and self-dismissed lawsuit against the Sathya Sai Baba Society Of America.

Sathya Sai Baba Society Of America – A “Bookstore”:
First of all, ex-devotees continually claim (expressing constant surprise) that the Sathya Sai Baba Society Of America is just a “bookstore”. What ex-devotees continually and purposely forget to mention is that Al Rahm (Alaya Rahm’s father) was a high ranking member in the Sai Organization and was fully aware that the Sathya Sai Baba Society Of America was a bookstore. Why would Al Rahm allow his son to file a lawsuit against the Society if it was only a “bookstore”? Why would Al Rahm withhold this relevant information from Alaya Rahm’s pro-bono lawyer, William Brelsford? So when ex-devotee’s shriek, hiss and foam-at-the-mouth about the Society being a “bookstore”, they are actually shrieking, hissing and foaming-at-the-mouth against the Rahm Family (who were fully aware that the Society was a bookstore). Even after it had come to light that the Society was a “bookstore”, had Alaya chosen he could have named other Sai-Related Organizations and defendants up to the day he self-dismissed his lawsuit. Alaya Rahm chose not to name any other Sai-Related Organizations or defendants but instead chose to self-dismiss his case.

The Failed Publicity Stunt:
The big question also arises: Why did Alaya Rahm attempt to sue Sathya Sai Baba for money in the USA when the Guru resides in India and when the alleged acts of impropriety occurred in India? This highly questionable act suggests to many that Alaya Rahm’s failed and self-dismissed court cases were nothing more than cheap publicity stunts that backfired. Why didn’t the The Rahm Family file a basic police complaint or court case against Sathya Sai Baba in India? Regardless of whether they would have won or lost the case, a lawsuit against Sathya Sai Baba in India would have generated immense publicity to their cause. Alaya Rahm voluntarily self-dismissed his case “with prejudice”, which is binding under the international doctrine of res judicata (meaning that Alaya Rahm cannot sue Sathya Sai Baba again in the USA or in India for the same reasons outlined in his self-dismissed lawsuit).

As a matter of fact, there were two self-dismissed lawsuits by the Rahm Family. Alaya Rahm self-dismissed his flimsy lawsuits against Dr. Michael Goldstein and Sathya Sai Baba in May 2005. The lawsuit against the Society was pursued for 16 months until April 17th 2006 (just eleven days before the case was set to go to trial). The Rahm Family attempted to argue that the Society somehow brainwashed Alaya Rahm to visit Sathya Sai Baba and was therefore liable for his alleged trauma (although Alaya Rahm claimed that he had suffered no psychological trauma that would have required medical or psychiatric care).

Needless to say, Lewis Kreydick (who actually paid for Alaya’s ticket to India) came forward with his video-taped deposition and stated that Alaya Rahm wanted to go to India to see Sathya Sai Baba, obtained the permission from his parents and the parents were long-term devotees prior to Alaya trip. So when Barry Pittard said, “Sathya Sai Baba’s Organization Lost Chance For Independent Adjudication”, he is being wholly untruthful as it was Alaya Rahm who dismissed his lawsuit, not the Sai Organization. The Society was fully prepared to take the issue to court for “Independent Adjudication” and Alaya Rahm self-dismissed his lawsuit with prejuidice of his own volition. Barry Pittard (attempting to white-wash the issue) accused William Brelsford of incompetence (Ref).

Alaya Rahm’s Failed Lawsuit – Important Points To Ponder:
Alaya Rahm’s lawsuit also brought to light pivotal information that is purposely ignored by critics, ex-devotees, former followers and skeptics:

  1. Alaya Rahm’s court case was self-dismissed because he sued the wrong defendant in the wrong court in the wrong country.
  2. In “Response To Form Interrogatories” Alaya Rahm fully admitted that he had been a daily user of illegal street drugs and alcohol since at least 1999 – 2005. Consequently, during Alaya Rahm’s “Divine Downfall” and India Today Anti-Sai interviews and during the filming of the BBC Documentary “Secret Swami” and the “Seduced By Sai Baba” Danish Documentary, Alaya Rahm was under the influence of illegal street drugs and alcohol while relating his alleged sexual encounters with Sathya Sai Baba. This crucial information wholly undermines Alaya Rahm’s credibility and irreparably compromises the integrity of his claims. Needless to say, this information has been purposely suppressed from the general public by Anti-Sai Activists, the Rahm Family and the media (Ref).
  3. Alaya Rahm claimed that Lewis Kreydick & Family were all aware of “incidents” relating to his alleged molestation and named them (on record) as people who:
    1. Witnessed the INCIDENT or the event occurring immediately before or after the INCIDENT.
    2. Made statements at the scene of the INCIDENT.
    3. Heard statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene.
    4. Had knowledge of the INCIDENT.

    Needless to say, Kreydick’s sworn and video-taped deposition wholly refuted all these points made by Alaya Rahm. The Society did not actively go out and attempt to discredit Alaya Rahm. Rather, they simply interviewed a witness named by Alaya Rahm himself and obtained a shocking and damaging deposition against him.

  4. The legal proceeding provided a forum in which Alaya Rahm’s claims could be thoroughly and critically examined. Through this process of investigation, it was discovered that Alaya Rahm and his family spoke at a number of retreats and conferences between 1995 and 1999 (during the time that the alleged sexual abuse events were said to have occurred). Inconsistent with Alaya Rahm’s later accusations, these conference talks (many of which were recorded and have been transcribed: Refs: 0102), contain no suggestion of any wrongdoing. The earlier words spoken by Alaya would appear to refute his later accusations, especially Alaya’s whole-hearted and enthusiastic praise of Sathya Sai Baba and the writing of a love poem to him after allegedly being sexually abused dozens of times.
  5. Notably, in pretrial discovery, Alaya Rahm claimed (by his own admission) that he had suffered no psychological trauma that would have required medical or psychiatric care. Furthermore, Alaya identified no psychologist who had ever examined him! As a matter of fact, Alaya Rahm never saw an “expert psychologist” and his parents never sent him to one. Rather, the only help that Alaya obtained was a 3 day seminar from the Landmark Forum on “Empowerment, self help and personal growth” that cost $795 in June 2005 (5-9 years after his alleged abuse and 5 months after he filed his lawsuit)! That’s it.
  6. Discovery also revealed the precise circumstances under which Alaya Rahm first disclosed his allegations to his parents. Alaya’s parents were displeased with his lifestyle, the company he was keeping and his failure to behave in a proper manner. Alaya was living off campus and (although an adult) was supported by his parents. Alaya’s parents decided on a surprise visit to attempt to straighten him out. They decided they would cut Alaya off financially if he did not begin to conform his life to their principles. In 1999 they confronted him and told him their ultimatum of being cut off financially. Only then did he claim to have deviated from a spiritual life because he was a victim of molestation.

Ostrich Mentality Prevalent Among Critics Of Sathya Sai Baba:
Although Joe Moreno has fully responded to the absurd and ridiculous claims that “foremost leaders of the Sathya Sai Organization” have “disguised” links with “unofficial internet presences” that libel and defame ex-devotees (Ref), Barry Pittard continues in his utter self-denial and asserts that websites run by Sai Devotees (which have disclaimers stating they are not affiliated with the Sai Organization) are engaging in “libel” and “slander” because they published reciprocal links going to Moreno’s website. The websites in question do not publish articles against Ex-Devotees (hence, the absurdity of their claims of “libel” and “slander”). The websites in question simply provided a link (on pages dedicated to links) to Moreno’s website and because they did this, these websites are blindly and erroneously accused of disinformation, libel campaigns and being affiliated with the Sai Organization!

Barry Pittard (a person who was never abused and who never witnessed an incident of alleged abuse) has been poorly attempting to do damage control for the Rahm Family and fellow Ex-Devotees. Barry Pittard’s desperation is clearly evident on his WordPress Blog (which is littered with all the signs of propaganda and link-spamming). Despite Barry Pittard’s almost daily bashing of Sathya Sai Baba for many years now, Sathya Sai Baba has never (ever) been charged with any crime and not even one alleged victim has even attempted to file a basic police complaint or court case against the Guru in India.

Relevant Links:
Exposing Critic’s Smear Campaigns Against Sathya Sai Baba
Alaya Rahm Self-Dismissed His Own Lawsuit Against The SSB Society
Alaya Rahm – A 6-10 Year-Long Daily User Of Illegal Street Drugs And Alcohol
A Scathing Response To Critics About Alaya Rahm’s Failed Lawsuit
UK BBC ‘Secret Swami’
The Truth About The Alleged Sathya Sai Baba ‘Sex Scandal’
Moreno Responds: Who Is Defaming And Libeling Whom?

Bryan Ronald Wilson, Emeritus Professor, Describes The Apostate Syndrome

Bryan Wilson (1926 – 2004), Emeritus Professor at All Souls College, Oxford was one of the most well known British scholars of religion and wrote extensively about New Religious Movements and apostates (ex-members who become openly critical of the group they were once a member of). In an article entitled Apostates and New Religious Movements, Bryan R. Wilson’s description of apostates fits Ex-Devotees of Sathya Sai Baba perfectly. Wilson wrote:

“Apostasy may be considered no less to occur when a single erstwhile believer renounces his vows and his former religious allegiance…Some of the lurid stories of monastic life, purportedly related by apostated monks and nuns — the celebrated case of Maria Monk was widely publicised — turned out to be largely fictional, but were much used by the anti-Catholic propagandist media of the day. In the present age of religious pluralism, in which a spirit of ecumenism prevails among many of the major Christian denominations, and in which the so-called ‘switching’ of allegiance from one of these movements to another is not uncommon, the charge of apostasy is less frequently heard. But since c. 1960, with the appearance in western society of various new minority movements which have distinctive religious teachings and which require a strong sense of specific commitment, a member who departs is likely to be regarded as apostatizing, and all the more so, of course, if that member then proceeds to ridicule or excoriate his former beliefs and to vilify those who were previously his close associates.

In recent decades, given the emergence of so many new religious bodies which make strong demands on the loyalty of their members, instances of apostasy have become matters of considerable attention for the mass media. The apostate’s story, in which he is usually presented as a victim, is seen as good news-copy for the media, particularly if he offers to ‘reveal’ aspects, and perhaps secrets, of the movement to which he formerly belonged. In consequence, apostates receive perhaps an unwarranted amount of media attention, particularly when they are able to present their previous allegiance in terms both of their own vulnerability and the manipulation, deception, or coercion exercised by the leaders and members of the movement into which they were recruited. Because these accounts are often the only information normally available to the general public about minority religions, and certainly the most widely disseminated information, the apostate becomes a central figure in the formation (or misformation) of opinion in the public domain concerning these movements.

Academic scholars interested in religious minorities, and in particular sociologists, in whose field this subject matter particularly lies, normally pursue their scholarly enquiries by a variety of well-recognized methods. They gather their data not only by archival research and the study of printed matter and documents, but also by participant observation, interviews, questionnaire surveys and, directly to the point at issue here, from informants. Apostates are often very willing informants, but sociologists generally exercise considerable caution with respect to this possible source of evidence. As I have written elsewhere, in discussion of the sociologist’s techniques of inquiry:

Informants who are mere contacts and who have no personal motives for what they tell are to be preferred to those who, for their own purposes, seek to use the investigator. The disaffected and the apostate are in particular informants whose evidence has to be used with circumspection. The apostate is generally in need of self-justification. He seeks to reconstruct his own past, to excuse his former affiliations, and to blame those who were formerly his closest associates. Not uncommonly the apostate learns to rehearse an ‘atrocity story’ to explain how, by manipulation, trickery, coercion, or deceit, he was induced to join or to remain within an organization that he now forswears and condemns. Apostates, sensationalized by the press, have sometimes sought to make a profit from accounts of their experiences in stories sold to newspapers or produced as books (sometimes written by ‘ghost’ writers). [Bryan Wilson, The Social Dimensions of Sectarianism, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990, p.19.]

Sociologists and other investigators into minority religions have thus come to recognize a particular constellation of motives that prompt apostates in the stance they adopt relative to their previous religious commitment and their more recent renunciation of it. The apostate needs to establish his credibility both with respect to his earlier conversion to a religious body and his subsequent relinquishment of that commitment. To vindicate himself in regard to his volte facerequires a plausible explanation of both his (usually sudden) adherence to his erstwhile faith and his no less sudden abandonment and condemnation of it. Academics have come to recognize the ‘atrocity story’ as a distinctive genre of the apostate, and have even come to regard it as a recognizable category of phenomena [A.D. Shupe, Jr., and D. G. Bromley, ‘Apostates and Atrocity Stories’, in B. Wilson (ed.), The Social Impact of New Religious Movements, New York, Rose of Sharon Press, 1981, pp. 179-215.] The apostate typically represents himself having been introduced to his former allegiance at a time when he was especially vulnerable — depressed, isolated, lacking social or financial support, alienated from his family, or some other such circumstance. His former associates are now depicted as having prevailed upon him by false claims, deceptions, promises of love, support, enhanced prospects, increased well-being, or the like. In fact, the apostate story proceeds, they were false friends, seeking only to exploit his goodwill, and extract from him long hours of work without pay, or whatever money or property he possessed. Thus, the apostate presents himself as ‘a brand plucked from the burning,’ as having been not responsible for his actions when he was inducted into his former religion, and as having ‘come to his senses’ when he left. Essentially, his message is that ‘given the situation, it could have happened to anyone.’ They are entirely responsible and they act with malice aforethought against unsuspecting, innocent victims. By such a representation of the case, the apostate relocates responsibility for his earlier actions, and seeks to reintegrate with the wider society which he now seeks to influence, and perhaps to mobilize, against the religious group which he has lately abandoned.

New movements, which are relatively unfamiliar in their teachings and practices, and the beliefs and organization of which are designed in terms that are new or newly adapted, are most susceptible to public suspicion; If they have secret or undisclosed teachings, or appear to be exceptionally diligent in seeking converts, or have a distinctive appeal to one or another section of the community (e.g., the young; students; ethnic minorities; immigrants, etc.) or if the promises of benefit to believers exceed the every-day expectations of the public at large, then they may easily become objects of popular opprobrium or even hostility. The atrocity stories of apostates, particularly when enlarged by the sensationalist orientation of the press, feed these tendencies, and enhance the newsworthiness of further atrocity stories. Newspapers are will known to recapitulate earlier sensationalist accounts when locating new stories in similar vein about particular movements — a practice designated by some sociologists as the use of ‘negative summary events.’ [‘This refers to the journalistic description of a situation or event in such a way as to capture and express its negative essence as part of an intermittent and slow-moving story. An apparently isolated happening is thereby used as an occasion for keeping the broader, controversial phenomenon in the public mind.’ — James A. Beckford, Cult Controversies: The Societal Response to New Religious Movements, London, Tavistock, 1985, p. 235.] By this means, the dramatic import of each apostate’s story is reinforced in its significance, to the detriment of objective and ethically neutral enquiry into religious phenomena of the kind undertaken by academic sociologists. Contemporary religious bodies, operating in a context of rapid social change and changing perceptions of religious and spiritual belief, are likely to be particularly susceptible to the disparagement and misrepresentation which occurs through the circulation and repetition of the accounts of apostates.

Neither the objective sociological researcher nor the court of law can readily regard the apostate as a creditable or reliable source of evidence. He must always be seen as one whose personal history predisposes him to bias with respect to both his previous religious commitment and affiliations, the suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem, by showing himself to have been first a victim but subsequently to have become a redeemed crusader. As various instances have indicated, he is likely to be suggestible and ready to enlarge or embellish his grievances to satisfy that species of journalist whose interest is more in sensational copy than in a objective statement of the truth.”

INFORMATION ABOUT BRYAN RONALD WILSON
Bryan Ronald Wilson is the reader Emeritus in Sociology in the University of Oxford. From 1963 to 1993, he was also a Fellow of All Souls College, and in 1993 was elected an Emeritus Fellow.

For more than forty years, he has conducted research into minority religious movements in Britain and overseas (in the United States, Ghana, Kenya, Belgium and Japan, among other places). His work has involved reading the publications of these movements and, wherever possible, associating with their members in their meetings, services and homes. It has also entailed sustained attention to, and critical appraisal of, the works of other scholars.

He holds the degrees of B.Sc. (Econ) and Ph.D. of the University of London and the M.A. of the University of Oxford. In 1984, the University of Oxford recognized the value of his published work by conferring upon him the degree of D.Litt. In 1992, the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium awarded him the degree of Doctor Honoris Causa. In 1994, he was elected a Fellow of the British Academy.

At various times he has held the following additional appointments:

  • Commonwealth Fund Fellow (Harkness Foundation) at the University of California, Berkeley, United States, 1957-8
  • Visiting Professor, University of Ghana, 1964
  • Fellow of the American Counsel of Learned Societies, at the University of California, Berkeley, United States, 1966-7
  • Research Consultant for the Sociology of Religion to the University of Padua, Italy, 1968-72
  • Visiting Fellow of The Japan Society, 1975
  • Visiting Professor, The Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium, 1976; 1982; 1986; 1993
  • Snider Visiting Professor, University of Toronto, Canada, 1978
  • Visiting Professor in the Sociology of Religion, and Consultant for Religious Studies to the Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand, 1980-1
  • Scott Visiting Fellow, Ormond College, University of Melbourne, Australia, 1981
  • Visiting Professor, University of Queensland, Australia, 1986
  • Distinguished Visiting Professor, University of California, Santa Barbera, California, United States, 1987
  • For the years 1971-5, he was the president of the Conférence Internationale de Sociologie Religieuse (the world-wide organization for the discipline); in 1991 he was elected Honorary President of this organization now re-named as Société Internationale de Sociologie des Religons
  • Council Member of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion (United States) 1977-9
  • For several years, European Associate Editor, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
  • For six years, Joint Editor of the Annual Review of the Social Science of Religion.
  • He has lectured extensively on minority religious movements in Britain, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Japan, and the United States, and occasionally in Germany, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden.
  • He has been called as an expert witness on sects in courts in Britain, the Netherlands, New Zealand and South Africa and has provided evidence on affidavit for courts in Australia and in France. He has also been called upon to give expert written advice on religious movements for the Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons.

Among other works, he has published nine books devoted in whole or in part to minority religious movements:

  1. Sects and Society: the Sociology of Three Religious Groups in Britain, London: Heinemann and Berkeley: University of California Press, 1961; reprinted, Westport, Conn., United States; Greenwood Press, 1978
  2. Patterns of Sectarianism (edited) London; Heinemann, 1967
  3. Religious Sects, London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson; New York: McGraw Hill, 1970 (also published in translation in French, German, Spanish, Swedish and Japanese)
  4. Magic and the Millennium, London: Heinemann, and New York: Harper and Row, 1973
  5. Contemporary Transformations of Religion, London: Oxford University Press, 1976 (also published in translation in Italian and Japanese)
  6. The Social Impact of the New Religious Movements (edited) New York: Rose of Sharon Press, 1981
  7. Religion in Sociological Perspective, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982 (also published in translation in Italian; Japanese translation in preparation)
  8. The Social Dimensions of Sectarianism Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990
  9. A Time to Chant: the Soka Gakki Buddhists in Britain, [with K. Dobbelaere] Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994 (Japanese translation in preparation).

He has also contributed to more than twenty-five articles on minority religious movements, to edited works and learned journals in Britain, the United States, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Japan, and to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, and the Encyclopedia of Religion, and is currently preparing a contribution for the Encyclopedia Italiana.

Reference

Barry Pittard & Robert Priddy Associate Themselves With Proven Perverts

Barry Pittard is the self-professed “international coordinator in attempts to bring Sai Baba to justice” and is the founder of the bogus “global coalition” F.D.S.S.B.. His sidekick is the Anti-Sai Extremist from Oslo Norway, Robert Priddy. Although Barry Pittard and Robert Priddy have thrust themselves into the limelight as being the main spokespersons for the Anti-Sai Movement, they purposely suppress the fact that they explicitly, unabashedly and wholly endorse, promote and associate themselves with proven and known perverts, sexual deviants and pathological liars.

The following screen-caps show how both Pittard & Priddy solicit Sanjay Dadlani’s “Sai Baba EXPOSED” blog on their wordpress.com accounts (click on thumbnails to enlarge):
Robert Priddy Promoting Sanjays BlogBarry Pittard Promoting Sanjays Blog

Barry Pittard and Robert Priddy see absolutely nothing wrong with Sanjay Dadlani’s homosexual-fantasizing slurs, Jesus Sex Fetish and Boot Sex Fetish. Although Sanjay went around secretly stalking innocent women (calling them “bitches” and “sluts”, saying “they want it”, calling Mothers “MILFs”, photographing females and teenagers up their dresses and under tables and publishing these photos on his streetbitches blog), Barry and Robert are right there holding hands with Sanjay. Shame on Barry Pittard and Robert Priddy!

Sanjay even posted on the QuickTopic Forum (using multiple fake names, including female names) and made disgusting comments under the name “Marquis de Sade”, even duplicating a post about a Priest ejaculating on the face of a little girl, as related by her brother. Sanjay even posted under the name “kick his head in” and said that someone should murder Sathya Sai Baba (of course, this is the same guy who rejoiced when a Sai Baba temple was bombed). Nice friend you have there, Barry & Robert.

Barry Pittard and Robert Priddy are fully aware of Reinier van der Sandt’s very disturbing admission to viewing child pornography. Barry and Robert purposely ignore the fact that Reinier used numerous fake names on the SSB2 Yahoo Group and hold hands with him as well (as can be seen with their association with him through the exbaba website).

Barry Pittard and Robert Priddy defend, promote and endorse perverts, defamers and liars. What does this say about Barry & Robert? I think the answer is self-evident. As they say, “Birds of feather flock together”.

Robert Priddy Lies Again About Joe Moreno

On digg.com Robert Priddy said (under his oxymoronic name “truthpromoter”):

“To defend my reputation in advance it has become necessary to point out how every posting made by any ex-devotee anywhere on the Internet is followed wherever possible by defamatory comments by GM108 or joe108 (Gerald Moreno) fanatical web-stalker who posts links to side-issues, libel and his trivialities daily. Employed full-time doing dirty tricks to defend Sai Baba and his Organisation. He twists the truth to claim that I am stalking HIM, but I have made no blogs about him (as he has about me) nor any webpages against him (which he has on a grand scale against me!). I am simply warning against his libels.”

Click On Thumbnail To Enlarge:no-webpages-lie.gif

Robert Priddy has yet to refute what he calls my “side-issues”, “libel” and “trivialities”. I FULLY reference my articles, unlike Robert Priddy who simply denies, deflects and foams-at-the-mouth (as can be seen by his comments on the screen-cap above). The only person “employed full-time” and using “dirty tricks” to attack Sathya Sai Baba is Robert Priddy (as can be seen on his six Anti-Sai Websites). The reason why I have so many webpages about Robert Priddy is because my thorough documentation of his massive fraudulence is very well established.

Robert Priddy said (about me):

“I have made no blogs about him (as he has about me) nor any webpages against him.”

Needless to say, this is yet another bold-faced untruth from Robert C. Priddy. Take a look at the following webpages where Robert Priddy directly and specifically attacks me. Some of his comments are many paragraphs in length and one webpage anonymously defames me and makes numerous unsupported comments against me:

  1. home.no.net/anir/Sai/saiorg/head.htm
  2. home.no.net/anir/Sai/saiorg/
  3. home.no.net/anir/Sai/enigma/SSO%20publicity.htm
  4. home.no.net/anir/Sai/saiorg/EX-OFFICE%20BEARERS.htm
  5. home.chello.no/~reirob/sorg0.htm
  6. home.chello.no/~reirob/sorg1.htm
  7. home.chello.no/~reirob/sorg3.htm
  8. home.chello.no/~reirob/geodata.htm
  9. home.no.net/abacusa/T/stooge.htm
  10. gethome.no/~reirob/CovUp4.htm
  11. gethome.no/~reirob/sorg2.htm

Robert Priddy created an anonymous website attempting to libel me on angeltowns2 and they terminated his account for defamatory content and for violating their terms and conditions (Refs: 0102). Robert Priddy also attacked me anonymously on the QuickTopic forum using the fake name “bandbox” (Reference). Robert Priddy lied about me on a public forum and I responded to his untruths in my article entitled Robert Priddy And His ‘Babafan’ Lie. In addition to these, Robert Priddy made numerous gutter untruths against me on Wikipedia. See:

Therefore, when Robert Priddy said “I have made no blogs about him (as he has about me) nor any webpages against him”, he lied because his numerous comments, libels and defamations against me are not only published on his Anti-Sai Webpages, they are fully recorded on Wikipedia and other public forums.

Robert Priddy also solicits and promotes the defamatory blog of Sanjay Dadlani (who has been fully exposed for his trashy and kinky killuminati blog, streetbitches blog, his Jesus sex fetish and his QuickTopic Deceptions).

Robert Priddy also promotes Alan Kazlev‘s defamatory pages against me in which he plays the role of bogus psychiatrist (because he has no credentials in the medical or mental health fields). It is also amusing that Robert Priddy promotes Alan Kazlev when Priddy made fun of the “lunatic fringe” often seen in cults and religious movements (Reference).

As I have said many times before, the more Robert Priddy says, the less I have to defend. Robert Priddy makes the case for me that he is a mentally unstable defamer who lies about others unapologetically (all the while harping on morality, ethics and honesty). Robert Priddy stands exposed, humiliated and ashamed, all from his own doing. He has no one else to blame but himself and no amount of deflection, foaming-at-the-mouth and denial will save him now.

Reference

Ex-Devotee Of Sathya Sai Baba – More Fraudulence Uncovered

Barry Pittard is a cunning and deceitful individual (with proof) who has become so desperate in his smear-campaigns against Sathya Sai Baba that he is now purposely and maliciously associating news that has nothing to do with Sathya Sai Baba with him.

Just recently, Barry Pittard wrote an article on his Anti-Sai conspiracy blog that said:

Judge warned: Crippling disease won’t stop pervert

Some devotees of Sathya Sai Baba – the ’God’ worshipped by so many of India’s top power brokers (and others beyond) who faces worldwide accusations of large-scale, serial sexual molestation of boys and young men – claim that he could not possibly offend, if he ever did, because of his age and physical incapacity, and that therefore his current accusers are caught in a palpable deceit. L. An Ironside Sai Baba – not one to easily push around. R. Ageing rapist Wayne Chapman still Dangerous. (Boston Herald Photo Pool)They offer no evidence concerning the nature of sexual capacity and ageing. Yet there is a mass of readings on the topic ‘ageing and sex’ in the popular press, let alone a wealth of information from Gerontology and Geriatrics. As ever, the Internet is an abundant source. But why go looking for facts when there is a guru to defend at all costs? And the word ‘costs’ is more than appropriate, since Sai Baba’s worldwide cult has to defend many billions of dollars of investment in its notion that Sai Baba is about to rule the earth. Any dear reader who happens to be a billionaire, watch your money – Sai Baba is a consumate master in extracting it from you – without seeming to want it. See my article: Sai Baba, Kubla Khan, Citizen Kane, Bill Gates et aliaOf course, making Champion of the World may require Sai Baba to take a little more than Viagra or Cialis.Extract from: Judge warned: Crippling disease won‘t stop pervert
By Laurel J. Sweet
Boston Herald. Friday, March 23, 2007
‘Aging and Sick Sex Offender to Be Civilly Committed?Whatever the wisdom of civil commitment laws it would seem that this fellow might qualify. Increasingly, though, the states are going to have to contend with the high cost of health care in keeping aging and sick convicts behind bars.Even though his aging, bloated body is confined to a wheelchair, a judge was warned yesterday a 59-year-old convicted sexual predator remains dangerous to children. A forensic psychologist assured Lawrence Superior Court Judge Howard J. Whitehead that convicted child rapist Wayne Chapman, who bragged he had sexually molested between 50 and 100 boys and even fantasized about killing some of them, “presents a high and unacceptable risk to re-offend.” “It just doesn’t go away,” Christine Schnyder Pierce testified. Chapman, an interstate predator, has been incarcerated for 31 years. Having served his time, he is hoping to retire in Massachusetts, but the Essex District Attorney’s Office is fighting to have Whitehead civilly commit him for life as a “sexually dangerous” person’.”

Barry Pittard also posted a blurb on digg.com that said:

Judge warned: Crippling disease won’t stop pervert
Some Sai Baba protagonists claim that he could not possibly sex offend, if he ever did, because of his age and physical incapacity, and that therefore his current accusers are caught in a palpable deceit. Instead of attempting to belittle testimony, they need to look at what Gerontology and Geriatrics have to opine on the topic.”

The only person “caught in palpable deceit” is Barry Pittard, who purposely and maliciously attempted to deceive the general public by making it seem as if a Judge was warned that Sathya Sai Baba was a pervert who had a crippling disease. As a matter of fact, a woman named “Miriam Dunn” (aka “Miridunn”) commented on Barry’s digg.com post and was under the impression that the warning pertained to Sathya Sai Baba. Miriam Dunn said:

“Until he is DEAD he poses a threat. Keep him locked up forever.”

It is exactly articles like these that prove that Barry Pittard is an Anti-Sai extremist and fanatic who must rely on deception, misrepresentation, subterfuge and fraudulence to make his case against Sathya Sai Baba because the truth does not argue in his favor. The article in question was not related (directly, indirectly or otherwise) to Sathya Sai Baba whatsoever.

First of all, Sathya Sai Baba has never (ever) been convicted or charged with any crime, sexual or otherwise. Period. Secondly, there is not even one public grievance, police complaint, court case or affidavit that has ever been filed against Sai Baba for pedophilia or child molestation and no critic can provide a scintilla of verifiable evidence to the contrary.

Barry Pittard also claimed that he and other ex-devotees do not slur. Despite this patently absurd claim, Barry Pittard slurred and said of Sai Baba: “Of course, making Champion of the World may require Sai Baba to take a little more than Viagra or Cialis”. For those who do not know, Viagra and Cialis are male-impotence medications that work by enhancing the effects of one of the chemicals the body normally released into the penis during sexual arousal. This increases blood flow into the penis and an erection is the result. That’s right, Barry Pittard (the oh-so-dharmic, non-slurring ex-devotee) is insinuating that Sathya Sai Baba is taking Viagra and Cialis without proof.

Ironically, Barry Pittard (while a devotee of Sai Baba) fathered a son out of wedlock with a 21 year old woman when he was 58 (and old enough to be her Grand-Father). Barry Pittard also performed questionable “kundalini healings” on women when he was a Sai Devotee. Is it of any wonder that Barry Pittard was kicked out of Sathya Sai Baba’s ashram (by his own admission)?

Barry Pittard also attempted to warn people about giving money to Sathya Sai Baba. The Sathya Sai Organization happens to be one of the largest recipients of foreign donations in India. Barry Pittard already made it clear why he is attempting to influence people not give money to Sathya Sai Baba’s charitable organizations. On March 30th 2003, Barry Pittard said:

“I am trusting that one of the effects of our constant Exposure on many levels will be to get into all sorts of nooks and crannies that we cannot even be aware of, and taht this will, for example, increasingly bite into the huge financial contributions, with those who have been donors suddently disappearing from the Sai Trust/Sai Org. arena, along with their disbrusements. Perhaps it is too early-days for this to be happening but, given the enormous extent of our intensive actions, both individual and organised, in the last three years, it must be getting a lot closer. It is what we need to bring about, so that the Sai Empire begins to crumble from many points within its edifice.” (Reference)

On every front, Barry Pittard and Anti-Sai Activists are waging a lonely and losing battle against Sathya Sai Baba. Even after many years of unremitting smear and hate campaigns, vicious defamations, libels, gutter untruths, subterfuge and outright deceit (posted on hundreds of Anti-Sai webpages), Sathya Sai Baba’s charitable Organization is still one of the largest recipients of foreign donations in India. Sathya Sai Baba remains a very popular and well respected Guru who commands great respect and devotion from India’s intellectual elite, including Presidents and Prime Ministers (as well as millions around the globe).

This is not the first time that Barry Pittard has attempted to con the general public with his fraudulent articles. For example, read my previous article about Barry Pittard’s Free-Press-Release About Tim Sullivan. The more Barry Pittard says, the less I have to defend. Barry Pittard compromises his own integrity with every stroke of his poisoned pen. Barry Pittard has lost all crediblity and it is about time everyone can see and verify it for him/her self.

Reference

Kevin Shepherd And Robert Priddy

MAJOR UPDATES:
Kevin R. D. Shepherd Wikipedia Page Deleted
A Scathing Response To Kevin R.D. Shepherd
Simon Kidd (sockpuppet “The Communicator” On Wikipedia)
Alex Jamieson (no newbie) On Wikipedia

Anti-Sai Activists have attempted to assert Robert Priddy‘s notability by citing a reference made to him in the following book:

Title: Investigating the Sai Baba Movement: A Clarification of Misrepresented Saints and Opportunism
Author: Kevin R.D. Shepherd
Publisher: Citizen Initiative, Dorchester, Dorset, United Kingdom
Book Release: 2005-10
Format: Hardcover
ISBN: 0952508931

Anti-Sai Activists alleged:

“According to Kevin Shepherd, the former national leader of the Sathya Sai movement in Norway Robert Priddy expressed the opinion that Sathya Sai Baba was an accomplice to the 1993 murders, among others based on information given to him by his friend V.K. Narasimhan.”

First of all, V.K. Narasimhan was a staunch Sai Devotee to his death and exclusively referred to Sathya Sai Baba as “Bhagavan” (i.e., “God”) and “Lord”. As a matter of fact, V.K. Narasimhan wrote about Sathya Sai Baba (in Sanathana Sarathi, Special Issue, November 1999) about 3 months before he died and this is how he introduced his article:

“There are certain periods in the history of mankind when the mortal beings of this earth witness epoch-making divine events with their own eyes. By far the most astounding event of this century is the Advent of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba.” (Reference)

V.K. Narasimhan wrote the following two books favorable to Sathya Sai Baba and not only referred to him as “Lord”, he also compared him with Mahatma Ghandi:

  • “From Bapu to Baba” V.K. Narasimhan, Kalakshetra Publications, Madras 1985. Republished by Sai Towers Publishing, Puttaparthi, 1990. ISBN-10: 8186822186 – ISBN-13: 978-8186822180
  • “Devoted to the Lord. Beloved of the Lord” V.K. Narasimhan, 1992, 80th birth anniversary offering to VKN, edited by his son, V.N. Narayanan. Contains a letter from the President of India, R. Venkataraman and from the Governor of Maharashtra, C. Subramaniam.

Therefore, Robert Priddy‘s claims about Sri V.K.N. are highly suspect and wholly unbelievable.

Secondly, there are absolutely no online references about Kevin R.D. Shepherd’s qualifications, notability, personal information, credentials or schooling. There are also no media articles or University references to Kevin Shepherd although his books have been published as far back as 1983. The reason for this is probably because all of Kevin R.D. Shepherd’s books are self-published.

Kevin Shepherd’s books were published by the publisher “Citizen Initiative” (Dorchester, Dorset, United Kingdom), which is not listed on booktrust’s UK publishers. The only books published by “Citizen Initiative” (utilizing an advanced search on Google for “citizen initiative” + “publisher(s)” / “publishing” / “publication(s)”) are those belonging to Shepherd, Kevin. No other books have been published by “Citizen Initiative”.

I contacted the University of Sheffield UK (regarding “Citizen Initiative” and Kevin Shepherd) by email and Mrs. Barringer said:

“Sorry – have never heard of them and can find no trace in any lists of publishers.”

I also contacted booktrust.org (regarding “Citizen Initiative” and Kevin Shepherd) by email and Mr. Smith said:

“I have never heard of Citizen Initiative, but their titles – almost exclusively written by Kevin Shepherd – are listed on the Nielsen BookData database of books in print. CI also appears to act as a distributor for titles published by Anthropographia Publications (again, these books are all by Mr Shepherd), Philosophical Press and New Media Books Ltd.”

“Anthropographia” and “Philosophical” publications are other publishers that are in exclusive association with Kevin Shepherd (publishing no other books by no other authors).

Publications By “Citizen Initiative”, all by Kevin Shepherd:

  1. Some Philosophical Critiques and Appraisals
  2. Investigating the Sai Baba Movement
  3. Pointed Observations

Therefore, Kevin Shepherd’s books are self-published and his reference to Robert Priddy‘s Anti-Sai Propaganda is highly suspect, non-credible and obviously poorly researched.

Reference